smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM

Right back atcha, what's wrong with removing cattle on land that the rancher does not own after 20 years of free grazing?

Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. 

jbhoot - 2014-04-15 10:24 AM Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.

TXBO - 2014-04-15 11:14 AM


It also give them the right to impound them. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-15 11:03 AM

With the varying reports out there I don't know what to believe!
With an open mind...tell me if this one is even close to true?
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
 

TXBO - 2014-04-15 11:14 AM


It also give them the right to impound them. 

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:41 AM "There's so many differences out here w/leased vs private land...it may seem 'cheap' until you figure the lack of water into it. That's a huge expense. Last month a group of 'Friends of ...something' decided to remove over 2k feet of pipeline that came down a cliff side because they thought it was ugly! The rancher spent many thousands of $'s installing this to water his cows...he's been finding dead cows due to bullets & poison, his water tanks shot up...because the environmentalists hate cows & are trying to run him out. " You are not talking about environmentalists here, but domestic terrorists. You can't lump a person who works within the law for clean water, air and land with someone who destroys private property in support of an agenda. The militia that showed up at the Bundys with the guns that they showed on the news are domestic terrorists, not neighbors caring about a law abiding family. "Activists" is also a broad term with good an bad connotations and I think people have a tendency to lump them all into one bad group. If it wasn't for an activist, Lincoln, we would have had slavery for a lot longer. No one is saying that federal land users do not have production costs and problems. Just not the production costs of ranchers on private or privately leased land. If they weren't getting a good deal, they wouldn't put up with it. I personally knew one family that didn't. They had a Forest Service lease in Wyoming. It was so remote, his teenage sons and their dogs stayed with the cattle all summer. Without informing them, the Game & Fish Div. started a Grizzly Bear study in an area where their cattle were. After several cattle and dog deaths, and a run in with his kids, they found out that they had been baiting bears near his camp. The Game & Fish said they couldn't confirm some of the kills, and were not wanting to pay for the dead animals, which were special high altitude bred cows/calves. He took them to court, he won, said it wasn't worth the trouble, sold his lease, for a lot, sold his small ranch, and bought a private ranch in another state. That is how he dealt with it. Like a grownup.

MS2011 - 2014-04-15 11:26 AM

What infuriates me is wasting 3 million dollars on a mess like this. Why is that ok?

The BLM/government is supposed to treat animals humanely, running cattle like that during calving season is cruel. No rancher would've done that. They caused a lot of death an suffering, why is that ok? Why don't they have to answer for that? That is not bundys fault, it falls squarely on the idiots of the BLM that organized this circus.

Working cattle is a skill, some people never get it. It's a matter of understanding how they think and being in the right place.

The more research I do on this, the more inclined I am to side with Bundy.

Why does the BLM have a police force and military style vehicles?

kickincans - 2014-04-15 11:50 AM

 Have you seen anything about this on television ? Are they wearing it out like the search for the missing plane or the guy that shot his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder?  NO you are not seeing this all over the news,talk shows etc.  There is a reason, it's a dirty deal and your government doesn't want it broadcast, it's all about power,money and greed,we are not being told the truth, I am going to side with Bundy, don't let the government run over you, if more of us don't start taking a stand against them , we are going to lose all of our rights and freedom, no different than Obama care, how can you be forced by the government to purchase a product in any market and fined if you don't???? We are losing our rights STAND up and be Americans!!!

foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted!

jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:24 AM Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.

foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management



History

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.



These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.



The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.











Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.

In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.



In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).



In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."



The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]



Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.





Now to define the word disposition in a legal sense:

disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...

foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:03 AM Per Former Judge Andrew Napolitano's comments I have read, the traditional and _(perhaps most peaceful way) to have addressed and solved this problem would have been to place a lien upon the property on the disputed merchandise ie cattle. Upon sale of any cattle, then proceeds to settle said lien would have withheld and paid to the lienholder. I find this solution much more acceptable than the Armed Invasion of Cattle Country!

smiley - 2014-04-15 12:35 PM Yes, I am learning quite a bit about this - however, that fight is with the STATE OF NEVADA, not the BLM. The BLM is unable to say "well, hey, this guy has a point you know, we should just not do this." Not quite how it works.



If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.



I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win. 

MS2011 - 2014-04-15 10:26 AM What infuriates me is wasting 3 million dollars on a mess like this. Why is that ok? The BLM/government is supposed to treat animals humanely, running cattle like that during calving season is cruel. No rancher would've done that. They caused a lot of death an suffering, why is that ok? Why don't they have to answer for that? That is not bundys fault, it falls squarely on the idiots of the BLM that organized this circus. Working cattle is a skill, some people never get it. It's a matter of understanding how they think and being in the right place. The more research I do on this, the more inclined I am to side with Bundy. Why does the BLM have a police force and military style vehicles?

Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM  WOW IS RIGHT !!!